From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> To: Nag Avadhanam <nag@cisco.com> Cc: Daniel Walker <danielwa@cisco.com>, Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Khalid Mughal <khalidm@cisco.com>, xe-kernel@external.cisco.com, dave.hansen@intel.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, riel@redhat.com, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel: fs: drop_caches: add dds drop_caches_count Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 19:22:41 +1100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20160216082241.GY19486@dastard> (raw) In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.00.1602152135280.29586@mcp-bld-lnx-277.cisco.com> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 09:57:42PM -0800, Nag Avadhanam wrote: > On Mon, 15 Feb 2016, Dave Chinner wrote: > >So, to pick a random active server here: > > > > before after > >Active(file): 12103200 kB 24060 kB > >Inactive(file): 5976676 kB 1380 kB > >Mapped: 31308 kB 31308 kB > > > >How much was not reclaimed? Roughly the same number of pages as the > >Mapped count, and that's exactly what we'd expect to see from the > >above page walk counting code. Hence a slightly better approximation > >of the pages that dropping caches will reclaim is: > > > >reclaimable pages = active + inactive - dirty - writeback - mapped > > Thanks Dave. I considered that, but see this. > > Mapped page count below is much higher than the (active(file) + > inactive (file)). Yes. it's all unreclaimable from drop caches, though. > Mapped seems to include all page cache pages mapped into the process > memory, including the shared memory pages, file pages and few other > type > mappings. > > I suppose the above can be rewritten as (mapped is still high): > > reclaimable pages = active + inactive + shmem - dirty - writeback - mapped > > What about kernel pages mapped into user address space? Does "Mapped" > include those pages as well? How do we exclude them? What about > device mappings? Are these excluded in the "Mapped" pages > calculation? /me shrugs. I have no idea - I really don't care about what pages are accounted as mapped. I assumed that the patch proposed addressed your requirements and so I suggested an alternative that provided almost exactly the same information but erred on the side of underestimation and hence solves your problem of drop_caches not freeing as much memory as you expected.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> To: Nag Avadhanam <nag@cisco.com> Cc: Daniel Walker <danielwa@cisco.com>, Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Khalid Mughal <khalidm@cisco.com>, xe-kernel@external.cisco.com, dave.hansen@intel.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, riel@redhat.com, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel: fs: drop_caches: add dds drop_caches_count Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 19:22:41 +1100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20160216082241.GY19486@dastard> (raw) In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.00.1602152135280.29586@mcp-bld-lnx-277.cisco.com> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 09:57:42PM -0800, Nag Avadhanam wrote: > On Mon, 15 Feb 2016, Dave Chinner wrote: > >So, to pick a random active server here: > > > > before after > >Active(file): 12103200 kB 24060 kB > >Inactive(file): 5976676 kB 1380 kB > >Mapped: 31308 kB 31308 kB > > > >How much was not reclaimed? Roughly the same number of pages as the > >Mapped count, and that's exactly what we'd expect to see from the > >above page walk counting code. Hence a slightly better approximation > >of the pages that dropping caches will reclaim is: > > > >reclaimable pages = active + inactive - dirty - writeback - mapped > > Thanks Dave. I considered that, but see this. > > Mapped page count below is much higher than the (active(file) + > inactive (file)). Yes. it's all unreclaimable from drop caches, though. > Mapped seems to include all page cache pages mapped into the process > memory, including the shared memory pages, file pages and few other > type > mappings. > > I suppose the above can be rewritten as (mapped is still high): > > reclaimable pages = active + inactive + shmem - dirty - writeback - mapped > > What about kernel pages mapped into user address space? Does "Mapped" > include those pages as well? How do we exclude them? What about > device mappings? Are these excluded in the "Mapped" pages > calculation? /me shrugs. I have no idea - I really don't care about what pages are accounted as mapped. I assumed that the patch proposed addressed your requirements and so I suggested an alternative that provided almost exactly the same information but erred on the side of underestimation and hence solves your problem of drop_caches not freeing as much memory as you expected.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-16 8:22 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2016-02-12 20:14 [PATCH] kernel: fs: drop_caches: add dds drop_caches_count Daniel Walker 2016-02-12 20:14 ` Daniel Walker 2016-02-14 21:18 ` Dave Chinner 2016-02-14 21:18 ` Dave Chinner 2016-02-15 18:19 ` Daniel Walker 2016-02-15 18:19 ` Daniel Walker 2016-02-15 23:05 ` Dave Chinner 2016-02-15 23:05 ` Dave Chinner 2016-02-15 23:52 ` Daniel Walker 2016-02-15 23:52 ` Daniel Walker 2016-02-15 23:52 ` Daniel Walker 2016-02-16 0:45 ` Theodore Ts'o 2016-02-16 0:45 ` Theodore Ts'o 2016-02-16 0:45 ` Theodore Ts'o 2016-02-16 2:58 ` Nag Avadhanam (nag) 2016-02-16 2:58 ` Nag Avadhanam (nag) 2016-02-16 5:38 ` Dave Chinner 2016-02-16 5:38 ` Dave Chinner 2016-02-16 7:14 ` Nag Avadhanam 2016-02-16 7:14 ` Nag Avadhanam 2016-02-16 8:35 ` Dave Chinner 2016-02-16 8:35 ` Dave Chinner 2016-02-16 8:43 ` Vladimir Davydov 2016-02-16 8:43 ` Vladimir Davydov 2016-02-16 18:37 ` Nag Avadhanam 2016-02-16 18:37 ` Nag Avadhanam 2016-02-16 5:28 ` Dave Chinner 2016-02-16 5:28 ` Dave Chinner 2016-02-16 5:28 ` Dave Chinner 2016-02-16 5:57 ` Nag Avadhanam 2016-02-16 5:57 ` Nag Avadhanam 2016-02-16 8:22 ` Dave Chinner [this message] 2016-02-16 8:22 ` Dave Chinner 2016-02-16 16:12 ` Rik van Riel
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20160216082241.GY19486@dastard \ --to=david@fromorbit.com \ --cc=corbet@lwn.net \ --cc=danielwa@cisco.com \ --cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \ --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \ --cc=khalidm@cisco.com \ --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=nag@cisco.com \ --cc=riel@redhat.com \ --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \ --cc=xe-kernel@external.cisco.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.